Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
32. In a suit by the barber to have this revocation set aside, his best constitutional argument is
Nevertheless, the Barber Licensing Board commenced a proceeding against the barber to revoke his license on the ground that the barber used his business premises for illegal sales of cocaine. At a subsequent hearing before the board, the only pieces of evidence against the barber were affidavits by unnamed informants, who were not present or available for cross-examination. Their affidavits stated that they purchased cocaine from the barber in his barbershop. Based solely on this evidence, the board found that the barber used his business premises for an illegal purpose and ordered his license revoked.
The licensed barber was arrested by federal narcotics enforcement agents on a charge of selling cocaine in his barbershop in violation of federal laws. However, the local United States Attorney declined to prosecute and the charges were dropped.
A licensed barber works in a particular state. A state barber licensing statute provides that the Barber Licensing Board may revoke a barber license if it finds that the licensee has used his or her business premises for an illegal purpose.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The decision by the United States Attorney to dismiss the criminal charges is not a law or court judgment that would provide that the state law has not been violated. Thus, the Full Faith and Credit Clause would not apply.
C is incorrect. An administrative agency may exercise quasi-judicial powers such as those here.
D is incorrect. The federal drug laws are not so pervasive as to preempt the entire subject from state regulation. Moreover, this state regulation is not inconsistent with federal laws, so it would not be preempted.